Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patent Envisions Free Computing
Dotnaught writes "A Microsoft patent application published on Thursday shows the company contemplating free computers and software for its customers. It suggests 'a service provider such as a telephone company, an Internet service provider, or a leasing company may provide computer systems or components to users at a reduced charge or for free in exchange for targeted advertising delivery.'"
I seem to remember about a zillion companies in the 90s that did this. A good example is PeoplePC. Does this patent things have no sanity.
Hey microsoft it's the year 2000 calling.. they want their buisness plan back.
Seriously. Wasn't exactly this done already? How can they patent this?
I'm taking bets on how many minutes this'll take until it's cracked to show no ads.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Patents are never filed because someone plans on doing something.
they're filed because someone wants to stop someone from doing something else. this is the case here. I hope it doesn't get accepted.
CompuServ + Circuit City. PeoplePC. Altavista. Walmart.
Free hardware and/or online access.
Didn't work too well last time, either. Once you let the marketing guys fingers into it, they screw it up, by pushing too much.
And then charge Microsoft money.
...
Seriously, next thing you know, you'll be telling me that information just wants to be expensive and that spam is good for me.
But I'd trust Microsoft offering free hardware and software about as much as I'd trust someone "accidentally" phoning me and leaving me a message about this insider stock tip she just "happened" to pass on
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Actually, I like everything about this idea except for the words "targeted" and "advertising".
Seriously, if the offer is that someone can data-mine everything on my PC and send me lots of pop-ups, spam, and flash banners, then no thanks. If computers are really cheap enough to make this business model viable, then I'd just as soon buy the really extra-cheap computer myself anyway (if it's cheap, why not?), which means the business model still wouldn't be viable.
This is patently absurd!
Seriously, consumers need a lobby just dedicated to patent law reform. First step, outlaw patenting business plans and most intellectual property. Second step, open up the process so anyone can prove prior art and throw out a patent application on those grounds. Third step, go back to requiring a working model of anything physical to be patented.
So, a patent. Wonderful. Has it occured to anyone that they might not use it? That they might not have any intention of using it? Perhaps it's just so, that if anybody tries to do it, they will have to pay royalties? Did anyone think of this before they said "stupid...never work..."?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
My guess is Microsoft is just patenting vague advertising-revenue stuff to block others from patenting it. This does not mean Microsoft actually plans to move to advertising instead of paying for software.
Anybody else read that as Microsoft Envisions Patent Free Computing?
Seriously, if the offer is that someone can data-mine everything on my PC and send me lots of pop-ups, spam, and flash banners, then no thanks.
On a positive note, it may break some people of their Internet Addiction.
omg noes!!1 every reload brings more suffering!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
We'll have a patent on "FREE". Is that a paradox, or an oxymoron?
What?
I like everything about this idea except for the words "Microsoft" and "patent".
A computer-readable medium having computer-executable modules for execution on a client computer in association with advertising delivery comprising:
an opt-in module, comprising support for selecting an advertising delivery mode;
a user profiling module for collecting user profile data;
and an advertising delivery module for presenting a targeted advertisement corresponding to information in the user profile data according to the selected advertising delivery mode.
This is what the USPTO will be looking at when they do their prior art search.
How much did your Sunday paper cost you? Maybe a buck, these days. It probably cost the publisher about $3 to print it, factoring in all of the news gathering and publishing costs. However, they also sold about $5/paper in ads, so they're making a net profit.
Advertising is the primary revenue generator for information content providers. TVs, websites, newspapers, radio, and now computers. The only real difference is that once you get the computer, you have the computer and can theoretically do what you want. Of course, you could do that with a newspaper as well, by ripping the ads out.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
This is incredible! I think it is absolute genius to take ownership and control away from the consumer and put it in the hands of big business!
Why should you own your own computer, your own OS, your own software, your own data, etc. when you could be told what to use, what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and allow others to basically own your personal data!
Anyone else here old enough to remember when the PC was about decentralizing computing, taking control of your own data, and empowering yourself? This was Micro$oft's big selling point against IBM.
This is also why cell phone applications suck even though phones have multiple megabytes of memory, high resolution color screens, etc. that computers didn't even have a decade ago.
Now things have gone full circle and we are back to handing everything back over to big business. Only today that also includes a lot more personal data, choice, control of one's destiny, etc, etc.
Then again the general public doesn't seem to care about protecting their personal information, personal life, DNA, etc.
I can't stand the irony here. Gmail wouldn't exist if it weren't for targeted advertising.
isn't there already prior art for this? I thought there were 2 or 3 companies already doing this, many were in South america, so that may not be "prior" art. Also, wouldn't netzero qualify... they didn't give away a whole PC, but they had a model of ads-for-service 5 years ago.
People have done this before. Given away from computers that required you to view ads while using them, and usually required a certain amount of time spent with the computer connected to the Internet for retrieving new ads.
Could someone who cared enough to read the article explain how this patent is different than what those companies were doing in the late 90s?
The Farewell Tour II
Giving away software and services and making money through ads?
At any rate, I'd view this as a "defensive patent". One they don't want to implement, but to keep someone from implementing it instead. Exactly what patents were NOT intended for.
My only hope is that with the abuse of patents, some people will start reconsidering the patenting process. Or maybe the whole system altogether.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.